VideoCameraInSchools

Video Cameras In Schools

Video cameras and the courses that utilize them embody histories and ideologies that structure activity. The specific technology built into a camera as well as the manner in which they are made available are meaningful. The next chapter will consider the specifics of the camera—which features it offers and their affordances—and more about the forces behind the movement to bring video production to schools. A suggestion, however, of how such an artifact may influence particular contexts is contained in the following:

Artifacts are never “culturally neutral” and researchers should not view them as “fixed entities” that can simply be inserted into different cultural contexts which are then treated as independent variables. Instead, artifacts are catalysts of new kinds of human interactions—many of which cannot be predicted ahead of time. (Bransford, 2003, p. 81)

Video cameras contain the ideologies of their makers and purchasers, and though they confront the particulars of each school, cameras promote changes.

Video cameras, it was found, are increasingly brought into the institution of school in response to three movements—three potential revolutions for school systems. First, there is the much talked about digital revolution that it is hoped will effect meaningful changes in schools. A need is perceived to incorporate new media in public school curriculums. An essential part of this, which drives the creation of courses, is the emphasis on technology. “The word technology, a familiar term in anthropology, where it may refer to anything from language to an arrow to an atomic bomb, is most used in current popular press and educational circles to refer to computer related endeavors” (Hammond, 2003, p. 27). Video is normally edited on computers and therefore seems to be frequently worked into this broader movement; editing video is a more meaningful use of computers than most classroom uses and one that Apple Computer, Inc., has specifically promoted (see www.apple.com/education for details). Cameras that are digital or that can easily be connected to computers are less expensive and so more widely available than ever.

Video also represents another technology that has long been pervasive in popular culture and that has been used in schools with questionable success:television. The digital revolution has provided a new tool with which to invoke uses of media. Video production involves youth with a medium they are well acquainted with but as a creator as opposed to a passive consumer, which in turn is anticipated to promote media literacy. The rational is that society and individuals are expected to benefit from a more media savvy population (Galican, 2004). Thus the second possible revolution is one of genuinely inspiring critical literacy in a media saturated world (Goodman, 2003). Video production is therefore frequently seen as a revolutionary tool with which educators can achieve old goals.

The third possible revolution was an unexpected discovery of the pilot data (Beaty,1998) for this project and relates to its methodological uses: Cameras have the ability to alter social relations, particularly in the ways power is distributed, suggesting the possibility of a more democratic or, more properly, anarchic education. “Importing an artifact often involves importing cultural values and practices afforded by the artifact” (Lin & Schwartz, 2003, p. 10), and video production comes with practices that do not fit easily with common school practices. The most basic change is that students cannot create videos while sitting quietly at their desks. Other project-based or inquiry-based curricula provoke similar changes, which are then adapted to or adapted for, but video production is unique in the need for extensive physical movement.

While reporting on a similar “freedom,” that of working on the internet, Schofield and Davidson noted “that teachers commonly express concern about the possible negative consequences of student autonomy on the Internet and implemented procedures designed to control and circumscribe students’ online activities” (2003, p. 66). On the internet, a concern was about students navigating to virtual places that might be deemed inappropriate. With video production, students need a greater freedom to move to different real places, provoking similar teacher concerns. Their responses vary widely.

Students also respond differently to the affordances of the camera. They have the opportunity to ask questions, direct activity, travel, and rearrange furniture—all ways of potentially gaining a significant power through their association with the camera and project. The use of these affordances take different forms and can take unexpected directions: “Even though the design of a new tool is originally embedded in a particular practice, it is often used in other contexts, sometimes in ways, which its designers never imagined” (Lin & Hatano, 2003, p. 4). The unanticipated activities that emerged include teasing fellow students, gaining entrance to places that were usually off-limits, and challenging the authority of school staff in different ways. This power of the camera to reflect and change normal ways of relating make it a valuable tool for changing schools and conducting research. “Since people's use of technology reflects choices and therefore values, people's patterns of adaptation, resistance, and transformation within the possibilities they encounter, are indicators of cultural development” (Hammond, 2003, p. 27). Changes can equally indicate individual development.

Previous

Contents

Next

References